Variación Mensual de H/V

Research questions

This study presents a theoretical model based the proposition that developing shared leadership in knowledge organizations may build engagement and better position an organization for change. Whilst some organizations need to respond to change in a top-down manner to coordinate and plan initiatives (Weick and Quinn, 1999) shared leadership can also allow for wider input from knowledge workers which can increase resilience in an unpredictable environment (Day and Harrison, 2007; Pearce, 2004). However, the suggested benefits of shared leadership have only been verified through a handful of empirical studies, leaving organizations with no evidence based recommendation as to how to develop and implement such a model (Day and Harrison, 2007). What is clear that organizations firstly need to develop individuals skills to effectively share leadership (Cox et al., 2003; Pearce, 2004). Thus, the overall research question this thesis seeks to investigate is;

How can a shared leadership development program contribute to organizational change?

Secondly, researchers are advocating the importance of participation and the “humanization” of work through softer approaches to leadership and change (Armenakis et al., 1993; By et al., 2011; Haslam et al., 2010; Rost, 1991; Shuck and Rose, 2013). These approaches focus on “softer” social rather than structural controls to gain cognitive, emotional and physical engagement with a new vision (Porras and Silvers, 1991; Shuck and Rose, 2013). It is proposed that developing shared leadership may increase cognitive, emotional and physical investments in line with change efforts and thus the second research question is;

How does a shared leadership development program impact on employee engagement?

Answering these questions will help to better understand shared leadership, organizational change and employee engagement. Firstly, as shared leadership is still evolving (Day and Harrison, 2007) researchers are seeking to identify how this approach can be facilitated, maintained and its limitations (Pearce and Conger, 2003). Therefore studying an organization that has adopted a shared leadership approach can identify; means to develop a shared model, the conditions required to maintain it and what the outcomes may be.

Secondly, whilst a number of studies indicate the importance of leadership and learning and development in engagement (Tims et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007), few studies have looked specifically into the relationship between leadership

development and engagement (Shuck and Herd, 2012). This is a particularly

interesting avenue to identify how interventions may be designed to foster engagement in the workplace (Bakker et al., 2008; Shuck and Herd, 2012). Lastly, employee engagement has been implicated in positive change through OCB, although the researchers requested further research into the cause of this impact (Avey et al., 2008). The development of shared leadership may explain this as it has been shown to increase proactive behaviour and job expansion (forms of physical engagement) which contributes to change efforts (Hornung and Rousseau, 2007). This study therefore investigates whether shared leadership development plays a role in change by increasing employee engagement.

Theoretical model

The conceptual design proposed in this study is shown in Figure Two. This model incorporates the three concepts of this study into the Porras and Silver (1999) model of organizational transformation. A shared leadership development program can target both the organizational vision – by communicating a new vision to

participants of the program, and the work setting – most notably the leadership structure and leadership styles. This may change participant’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural engagement with work and the organization. This study posits organizational engagement as a proxy for Porras and Silvers enhanced individual development which represents a cognitive acceptance of the new vision and behavioural efforts to support this (Porras and Silvers, 1991). Organizational

engagement is also said to involves a cognitive acceptance process that results in an emotional connection to the organization and physical behaviour to support this (Shuck and Rose, 2013). These future leaders may therefore contribute to

organization wide engagement with the new paradigm by followers which can lead to greater organizational performance (Porras and Silvers, 1991).

Propositions

The first section of the theoretical model refers to the leadership development program itself. Existing research advocates the development of both individual leader and leadership capabilities to establish leader identities across individual, relational and collective (organizational) levels (Bilhuber Galli and Müller-Stewens, 2012; Day and Harrison, 2007; Gold et al., 2010; Pearce, 2004). This literature is the basis for proposition one:

Proposition one: A leadership development program that establishes

individual, relational and collaborative leader identities may enable the development of shared leadership.

Shared Leadership Development Leader Engagement Organization Wide Engagement (Enhanced Individual Development Organizational Performance (Profit, revenue, industry engagement)

Figure 2 - Illustration of the basic theoretical model proposed in this study. Shared leadership development should increase engagement in the future leaders who go on to spread this engagement and improve the organizations performance.

The second part of the model concerns the impact of leadership development on employee engagement. This study follows the theory of Sak’s (2006) that employee engagement exists on two levels based on the existence of multiple in an organization (Saks, 2006) and therefore:

Proposition two: A shared leadership development program should lead to

greater levels of both work and organizational engagement.

Leadership development should impact on employee engagement in two ways. Firstly, it should establish a number of antecedents to engagement including; a learning and development opportunity and thus greater personal resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008; Kahn, 1990), greater autonomy from their position as leaders in the future (Saks, 2006; Xu and Thomas, 2011), and an opportunity to craft ones job increasing task identity and meaningfulness (Tims and Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). This is the basis for proposition three:

Proposition three: A leadership development program may lift levels of

engagement in participants of the program providing an opportunity for learning and development, greater autonomy and an opportunity to craft ones job.

Secondly, the opportunity for development as well as support from organizational leaders, should lead to reciprocal investments of cognitive, emotional and physical engagement from employees as per social exchange theory (Saks, 2006). Therefore:

Proposition four: Organizations investing in shared leadership development

may gain reciprocal investments from participants of the program in the form of employee engagement.

Organizational engagement is used as a proxy for Porras and Silvers enhanced individual development would indicate adoption of the new vision. It is proposed in this study that developing a cohort of engaged leaders could raise the levels of organizational engagement through the rest of the organization. As discussed in the previous section, leaders can create the conditions necessary for follower engagement by; providing antecedents, displaying transformational leadership

behaviours and emotional contagion (Pearce and Sims, 2002; Tims et al., 2011; Tuckey et al., 2012). These ideas are summarized in proposition five:

Proposition five: Participants of the leadership development program could

lift engagement levels throughout the organization by altering the working conditions of their peers, transformational leadership behaviours, and emotional contagion.

Furthermore, as shared leadership enables leaders to emerge from within the ranks of the organization, it is likely that they represent the identities of the groups from which they emerged. Under the SIMOL the effects of leaders on followers may be more likely to occur as followers support, trust and identify with leaders who are prototypical representatives of themselves (Hogg, 2001; Van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003) as described in proposition six:

Proposition six: Shared leadership may facilitate the spread of employee

engagement, as the leaders are prototypical of the groups they represent, and are more likely to gain follower identification and support.

Lastly, it has been suggested that the outcomes of engagement including; discretionary effort, citizenship behaviours and proactive behaviours contribute to positive change (Avey et al., 2008; Christian et al., 2011; Hornung and Rousseau, 2007). Therefore, implementing a shared leadership program which lifts the engagement of its participants, who in turn help to engage others with the change effort should drive the organizations transformation from the bottom up (By et al., 2011; Choi and Ruona, 2011; Nadler and Tushman, 1994; Porras and Silvers, 1991). Higher levels of employee engagement have been shown contribute to productivity, task and role performance, and financial performance (Christian et al., 2011; Harter et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2012) which should contribute to the overall outcome of organizational transformation. Therefore proposition seven suggests:

Proposition seven: Organization-wide engagement will contribute to

Research design

This research investigates the theoretical framework using Kirkpatrick’s 4 level model of evaluation (Kirkpatrick, 1998). The four levels presented in Kirkpatrick’s model are; step one – reactions, step two – learning, step three – behaviour and step four – results. Step one refers to the participant’s reactions to the learning on the program and can include descriptions of program satisfaction and utility of the program. Step two refers to the skills, knowledge and abilities that one learns from the program whilst step three refers to the behavioural changes that occur as a result of this learning. Finally, step four refers to the impact that the training has had on the wider organization itself in terms of contributing to organizational goals and objectives (Bates, 2004; Kirkpatrick, 1998). These four levels can be incorporated into the framework in Figure Two to analyse the relationship proposed in the study as shown in Figure Three.

Shared Leadership Development Leader Engagement Organization- Wide Engagement Organizational Transformation

Step One: Reactions Step Two: Learning

Step Three: Behaviours

Step Four: Results

Figure 3 - Illustration of the research design, incorporating Kirkpatrick's four levels of evaluation to guide the study

Analysis of reactions and learning should be identified as a result of participation in the program. Step three; behaviour incorporates the changes that would result if employees experience higher engagement from participation in the development program. In addition, they should use their leadership skills to engage others in the workplace resulting in individual development or cognition changes throughout the organization and an overall increase in organizational performance. It is this design that is used as a framework to guide the research and design the methodology as will be described in the next chapter.